Today, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a young Viennese mother, was convicted under section 283 of the Austrian penal code of vilifying religious teachings for her negative commentary on Islam in a lecture before a political-party gathering in Vienna; she was fined 480 Euros. Sabaditsch-Wolff, a diplomat’s daughter, had lived and worked for several years in various Middle Eastern Muslim countries, and at the lecture in question spoke critically of the treatment of women and the practice of jihad in Iran, Libya, and other places that she had lived in. The court found that Austria’s free-speech guarantees protected her from hate-speech charges.
However, it seems the case turned on the judge’s reasoning that her statement that Islam’s prophet Mohammed was a “pedophile” was defamatory since his child bride Aisha (age six at the time of marriage and nine at the time it was consummated) remained his wife when she turned 18. The case was brought by prosecutors after complaints by a mainstream Austrian weekly magazine that had secretly taped and then wrote about her lecture. She plans to appeal.
— Nina Shea is director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-author with Paul Marshall of Silenced (Oxford University Press), a forthcoming book on contemporary Islamic blasphemy and apostasy rules.
"The law is an ass!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCharles Dickens via Mr Bumble.
This has nothing to do with sharia ("Islam’s Blasphemy Rules") and everything to do with PC run amok. The point at which there is a ban on "vilifying religious teachings" is the point at which there is a very deep problem with the nation's laws.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDitch, it shouldn't have anything to do with sharia, but it does. The logical conclusion of PC run amok is recognition of sharia, even when it creeps in slowly. Let's not let the line between Mosque and state get blurred.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNeither is it arson if one throws a bucket on the embers after igniting the inferno.
(Who knew that Austria was infected with Marxist Relativist Lefties)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember that a majority of SS officers came from Austria. Austrian scientists wear clothes to meetings with bone buttons and trim that distinguishes them from Germans but they are no more, and maybe less, tolerant. It is ironic because, in the 17th century, Austria was the barricade that stopped Islam from invading Europe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs Mark Steyn would say, it's lights out for Austria. At least the leaders of Germany, England and France have spoken openly about the complete failure of multiculturalism (i.e. as regards Muslims). Austria remains in the dark.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDhimmitude much?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBizarre. So if, in Austria, I marry and then "consummate" a 9-year-old girl, I'm legally not a pedophile? (i.e., not subject to child rape laws?) Or rather -- the government has to wait 9 more years to see if we break up, and if we don't, then I'm clear?
This is exactly what you can expect to happen when courts put themselves in the business of interpreting and protecting religious scripture.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is someone who has sex with a nine-year-old not a pedophile again? I don't see the judges reasoning here? If you "marry" the nine-year-old you rape and stay married to her after she turns eighteen (presumably after yet more rapes have taken place), that exonerates you from these prior pedophiliac acts?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank God for our First Amendment! I'm so glad this nonsense can't happen in the USA.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan the National Review staff please start posting links to the news items they comment on. It's standard courtesy across most blogs so that the reader can fact check for themselves the source of the blogger's information. I just googled Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and only get sites espousing her point of view, not reporting from a news site.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Jimmy: NRO is usually pretty good about that. I would like to see a correction to this post to fix that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs Austria had become a civilized nation, it wouldn't be playing footsie with Iran.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The case was brought by prosecutors after complaints by a mainstream Austrian weekly magazine that had secretly taped and then wrote about her lecture."
So - in Austria, the MSM act as the thought police. I would think that a mainstream publication would think twice, before opening that can of worms. Next week one of their competitors will be turning them in to the prosecutors. It is bad enough that colleges and universities have suspended free thought, without the media acting as the Stasi.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat could we expect from a country that overwhelmingly welcomed Anschluss with Germany in 1938? Seems to me Hitler really didn't have to strain himself too much: most Oesterreichers willingly jumped into his lap.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo Godwins in 15 comments. That's sad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll take it that the comment about the First Amendment and this not happening here is a joke. Of course it can happen here, and it very likely will happen here. Hate Crime laws are the first step towards it, and with Obama's judges in power, the First Amendment will mean nothing when it comes to speech the Left doesn't like.
And Germany, France, and Britain are not really ahead of Austria here. With a few exceptions, it is mostl talk from Merkel, Sarkozy, and Cameron. Until they aggressively champion deep cuts in immigration, and pretty much an end to Muslim immigration, then it's just meaningless talk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the fact that the subject matter involved Austria considerably upped the odds!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMohammed had 40 "virgins" or in other words, concubines. of course he was immoral. How muslims can see him as good heaven knows.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJimmy, regarding your question about news sites about my case: There are practically none. This is because the Austrian media chooses to ignore my case. If it weren't for the New Media, i.e. the bloggers, you'd know NOTHING about this case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse